Saturday, March 27, 2010

Organic Eating, Monsanto Hating, Raw Milk Drinking, Back-Yard Chicken Wanting Idahoan In Love With Ron Paul

This is a letter to the editor from Jen Pitino in the Idaho Press-Tribune:
I have a crush, though it is not your typical love affair, it is all swooning without any romantic designs. Despite not actually being in a relationship with the object of my affection, I have given him more time, energy and adoration than most of my past, real-life boyfriends. I am in love with Ron Paul.

Being in love with Ron Paul often feels like dating the high school rebel. It is difficult to neatly explain to my friends who can’t understand the attraction and demand to know “why am I with him?” There is no single reason, rather it is the sum total of his traits that make him irresistible.

My heart swells at his honesty and boldness. He has consistently spoken out against America ’s seemingly endless wars in the Middle East and was one of only six House Republican votes against the Iraqi war. The American people, he stoutly argues, were misled into a preemptive strike in Iraq based on false reports of WMDs. The results ever since have been devastating in the cost of human lives, the weakening of our national defense and the tremendous drain on our already compromised economy.

Tirelessly he warns Americans of the growing destruction of our Constitution through the false promises of homeland security. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the FISA Amendments Act are all direct attacks on constitutionally protected rights of privacy, habeas corpus and search and seizure. Ron Paul has fervently fought against all of these legislative attacks on our individual freedoms.

I like that he stands up to bullies. He strongly opposes the fundamentally undemocratic World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. He criticizes both of these secretive bureaucratic bodies that are intolerant to public opposition and act to the detriment of human rights, global justice and the environment, but to the advantage of transnational corporations. Ron Paul insists, “For the United States to give up any bit of its sovereignty to these unelected and unaccountable organizations is economic suicide.” He has described the WTO as a “meddling middleman” causing “serious harm to our economy and our sovereignty.”

Like any great date, he is a good listener. When nine out of 10 Americans who were contacting their legislators opposed the bailout bills, many congressmen weren’t such good listeners. Take Idaho, for example. Two out of the four Republicans in the Idaho congressional delegation (Larry Craig and Mike Simpson) voted against the will of Idahoans and for the banker bailout in 2008. Ron Paul listened and consistently voted against all of the bailout bills.

Furthermore, he isn’t a quitter. Twenty-six years ago, Ron Paul was a lone voice calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Today he has 318 co-sponsors for H.R. 1207, which would conduct that audit of the Fed. With the recent announcement of the 27th bank failure this year, Americans are rightfully questioning the wisdom of a system which has placed them on the hook for an estimated $5 trillion in banker bailouts. Serious scrutiny of the Federal Reserve is long overdue, and Ron Paul has never given up on this goal of transparency and accountability.

It makes me giddy that he and I share the same quirky passions. Unlike my friends whose eyes glaze over when I babble on about eating local organic foods or complain about agribusiness genetically modifying our food sources, Ron Paul understands me. Like me, he opposes the Monsanto-backed Food Safety Enhancement Act that puts the integrity of organic food production at risk. He introduced legislation to kill the federal NAIS program which would make it onerous, if not near impossible, for individuals to keep a few farm animals — like my dream of having backyard chickens. He also shares my belief that individuals, not a heavy-handed nanny-style government, should decide for themselves whether to drink raw milk. As a result, he sponsored H.R. 778 to remove the ban on allowing the interstate sale of raw milk.

Lastly, Ron Paul is no cheater. Other congressional members tell you that they are working hard to trim back government pork and wasteful spending, but do they really mean it? Ron Paul actually delivers on his promise to do all he can to save the taxpayers money. Last year, Ron Paul returned $100,000 to the Treasury from his allotted Congressional office budget by running his office in a prudent manner. He also refuses to accept the overly generous congressional pension benefit. He argues that the pension benefit is so lucrative compared to the private sector plans that it encourages careerism in congressional politicians.

In a nutshell, I am in love with Ron Paul because he allowed me to trust again. Too many times I had been two-timed and lied to by other D.C. politicians. A girl can only take so much disappointment. Ron Paul showed me that a Congressman can say what he means and mean what he says.

Ron Paul is the best faux-boyfriend that I’ve ever had.

26 comments:

Chris said...

Unfortunately, old Ron Paul is a liar in favor of paying the working class super low wages. He justifies it by trotting out the high value of freedom any chance he gets, and it is his politeness that makes him so poisonous and so easily believable for those those who "believe".

Furlong said...

He's a liar?

Christopher Furlong: said...

Yup.

Furlong said...

So...you're saying he's lied?

Have you ever lied?

Can you think of anyone who has never lied?

Calling someone a liar is a very dishonest manner of slander. You apply a negative label to someone because he might have at one time said something that wasn't true. However, it is an action we're all guilty of, so, really, what is the significance of calling him a liar other than cheap slander? None.

Chris said...

No, I am calling him a liar based on his Faith and based on his political ideology.

Sheldon Furlong said...

No Ron Paul is not a liar. Like or love his politics but he is not a liar. Call him misguided or idealistic, but, he is not a liar.

I know there is much in his attitudes that I find intriguing.

His fuzzy gray thinking on how a society assists the less fortunate leaves me a little worried.

If his thinking in this area could be as clear as his thinking is on most issues his attiudes would not be so unsettling.

Yes the current monetary policy is disturbing. Yes the current foreign policy is distrurbing but his lack of definition of how social polices would work are equally disturbing.

He is however, not a liar.

Furlong said...

The only ones overly ideological here are the ones that assume that we need government to steal from some to give to others.

Ron Paul, like or love it, understands some will fall between cracks. He also has a certain amount of faith in humanity in that he believes we are a charitable people and if we lived in a more prosperous society, the few that do fall between the cracks will find help from within their community. Are we a charitable people? A socialist would say "not enough, we need to steal and redistribute". I say I think we are, but its hard to be charitable when so much is stolen.

Wouldn't you help your neighbor if they were in need? Don't you think that our communities would be much tighter if we knew we depended more on each other? Don't you think this would be a healthier development for everyone involved, especially given we are heading face first into a future where communities are going to matter most?

Furlong said...

What I never understood about socialists is how they claim the moral high-ground by proposing to steal earnings from one individual and give it to someone else who did not earn it.

I further do not understand why someone like your self feels that people would not be charitable if more money was left in their pockets and there wasn't a social safety net. You could only assert such a claim if you yourself would not donate, in which case, who are you to steal from paul to give to peter?

Chris said...

"What I never understood about socialists is how they claim the moral high-ground by proposing to steal earnings from one individual and give it to someone else who did not earn it."

That's because you don't understand that a capitalist must use workers to make a product. All products are socially produced. Therefore, everyone deserves a fair share of the profit from the product they helped create.

"
I further do not understand why someone like your self feels that people would not be charitable if more money was left in their pockets and there wasn't a social safety net."

It is called history, Josh. Learn a little about the history of poverty and charity and you will see it my way.

Chris said...

Did you know that Mother Teresa had over 50 million dollars, but she didn't use it to help the poor? She spent it on building new nunneries and training new nuns.

Furlong said...

"Did you know that Mother Teresa had over 50 million dollars, but she didn't use it to help the poor? She spent it on building new nunneries and training new nuns."

I'm sorry, is your argument that governments tend to have a better record than private charities when it comes to helping the poor?

Furlong said...

"That's because you don't understand that a capitalist must use workers to make a product. All products are socially produced. Therefore, everyone deserves a fair share of the profit from the product they helped create. "

I love that word "fair".

Sheldon Furlong said...

"What I never understood about socialists is how they claim the moral high-ground by proposing to steal earnings from one individual and give it to someone else who did not earn it"

When one gives gladly it is not stealing. I do not understand your concept of stealing. I pay taxes so there will be better schools and roads and support of the elderly etc etc.

Furlong said...

"When one gives gladly it is not stealing. I do not understand your concept of stealing. I pay taxes so there will be better schools and roads and support of the elderly etc etc."

If I had the choice, i would not give my money to the government to pay money on their inefficient, obsolete educational system with their tenured drunk/pervert/horrible teachers and run down/poorly managed facilities. As well, the number of pot holes I hit every Spring says they do not do a good job maintaining our roads (though, if I was told the Province was going to collect a sales tax and the municipality was going to collect a property to maintain roads, and pay for essential local services, I'd be ok with this). My buddy who is suffering extreme pain and can't see a specialist for 5 weeks says I wouldn't donate my earnings to our health care system.

So, no, I do not give willingly, I give under the threat of violence for a system I do not endorse. So yes, I say again...

"What I never understood about socialists is how they claim the moral high-ground by proposing to steal earnings from one individual and give it to someone else who did not earn it."

Sheldon Furlong said...

"So, no, I do not give willingly, I give under the threat of violence for a system I do not endorse. So yes, I say again..."

Sounds to me like you need to get involved in politics!

Furlong said...

"Sounds to me like you need to get involved in politics!"

Every election I look for someone worth supporting....

Chris said...

"I'm sorry, is your argument that governments tend to have a better record than private charities when it comes to helping the poor?"

Yes, that's right. Social welfare systems have largely eliminated poverty in unionized countries.

"I love that word "fair"."

No you don't, because you know what it entails.

"If I had the choice, i would not give my money to the government"

Therefore you are against freedom and democracy. You are a totalitarian capitalist akin to Rush Limbaugh.

"to pay money on their inefficient, obsolete educational system with their tenured drunk/pervert/horrible teachers and run down/poorly managed facilities."

All the current teachers are perverted, drunk, horrible?

What a horrible argument.

It is the cult of freedom that has led to Western schools that perform much lower than their Eastern counterparts. Our primary value is "freedom". Their primary value is education. The Koreans eat, breath, and sleep education. We eat, breath, and sleep freedom. So, forgive me if I don't think our schools are poorly run. Forgive me if I think our teachers are handed an unruly horde of free market freedom fighters to "handle". Which is easier to teach? A child running around the classroom or a child taught that education is the #1 value? I think it is clear what the answer is.

"As well, the number of pot holes I hit every Spring says they do not do a good job maintaining our roads "

No, that is the result of your anti-tax mentality. There is not enough funds because of the anti-tax movement.

"(though, if I was told the Province was going to collect a sales tax and the municipality was going to collect a property to maintain roads, and pay for essential local services, I'd be ok with this)."

They do, so you must be okay with it.

"My buddy who is suffering extreme pain and can't see a specialist for 5 weeks says I wouldn't donate my earnings to our health care system."

No context! What kind of suffering, Josh? Is it cancer? Arthritis?

"So, no, I do not give willingly, I give under the threat of violence for a system I do not endorse. So yes, I say again..."

"I am an authoritarian property rights apologist".

Furlong said...

"Yes, that's right. Social welfare systems have largely eliminated poverty in unionized countries. "

Yes, I'm sure the 1 million poor Iraqi civilians slayed by the American government felt the love (just to touch the tip of the iceberg of blood that represents the American government's perspective of the poor). I'm sure the millions slayed by the German government in the 30s felt the love (and hell, they weren't even poor). Also, the millions of poor slayed by Stalin and the USSR i imagine appreciated the compassion.

See Chris, in theory, maybe a social democracy sounds fantastic. But it always requires the concentration of power to a relative few, and bad, corruptible people always gravitate to that concentration of power. Hayek wrote about this phenomenon in The Road To Serfdom. Because of that, a social democracy will never do what it sets out to do and in the long run will always do more harm than good.

"What a horrible argument."

Yes. When I was in high school, in ME or NS, there were always a couple of drunks, a couple of pervs, a lot of just horrible teachers, and few good ones that cared. And the problem is, all of the horrible teachers have tenure. So no its not a horrible argument. AS WELL, teachers aren't even allowed to fail students anymore.

We spend 13 years going through this system, and who comes out with any skill that provides any kind of value to our society? What is our governments spending so much money on to teach us that we need so badly? If it costs, say $10,000 per student per year for the government to educate me, well, they spent $130,000 educating me through my life-time to do what?

Why would I want to invest my income into a system that wastes $130,000 over a wasted 13 year span of an individuals life? I wouldn't.

Furlong said...

"It is the cult of freedom that has led to Western schools that perform much lower than their Eastern counterparts. Our primary value is "freedom". Their primary value is education. The Koreans eat, breath, and sleep education. We eat, breath, and sleep freedom. So, forgive me if I don't think our schools are poorly run. Forgive me if I think our teachers are handed an unruly horde of free market freedom fighters to "handle". Which is easier to teach? A child running around the classroom or a child taught that education is the #1 value? I think it is clear what the answer is."

Pffft give me a break. People think its ok to be stupid as long as they're free? Lol. People who understand liberty and the responsibility it entails values education with high regard and worked their asses off to get where they are. I agree that there is certainly an issue with how our kids are being raised and the general attitudes of parents and children in Western society. I think its because we don't think we need to work hard to enjoy prosperity, and because of that we are losing our prosperity. Like other abnormalities in our societies, I can take it back to the fact the US dollar provides us an illusion of wealth and easy living that will lose once it is no longer the reserve currency of the world. If the standard of living takes a dramatic shift downward, people here will start to view education very differently.

I was watching a speech given by a Hans Rosling, professor of global health at Sweden's Karolinska Institute, and he made a comment about when he was in graduate school (i think he was training to be a surgeon) he went to India for a year to study. He was always top in his class so he figured when he went to India it would be no different, but he struggled to compete with the students there. He said he would read through a text book once, but his fellow students in India would know the text book inside and out. The stark difference in attitude and work ethic was shocking. You can watch his 15 min speech here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/695

Furlong said...

"Therefore you are against freedom and democracy. You are a totalitarian capitalist akin to Rush Limbaugh. "

Actually, I'm pro-freedom, and am not a big fan of democracy. I am capitalist. However, given Wikipedia's definition of totalitarianism: "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible."...I'm not for the state being under control of one political organization, i'm not for class domination, I think the state should have very strict limitations to its power and should not regulate every aspect of private and public life...I'm probably not totalitarian. However if you consider the republicrats in the US to be a one-party system...this definition can be easily applied to the US government.

"They do, so you must be okay with it."

I am.

"No context! What kind of suffering, Josh? Is it cancer? Arthritis?"

Sharp pain suffering in an area very important to males. The cause is not know because he has to wait 5 weeks to see someone that can diagnose it.

As per normal, those that have no health concerns, love socialized medicine, those that have significant health concerns, never have anything good to say about it.

Chris said...

"Yes, I'm sure the 1 million poor Iraqi civilians slayed by the American government felt the love (just to touch the tip of the iceberg of blood that represents the American government's perspective of the poor)."

I don't know what the unjust war in Iraq has to do with unions, Josh.

"I'm sure the millions slayed by the German government in the 30s felt the love (and hell, they weren't even poor). "

???

The German government destroyed the union and Marxist movement.

"Also, the millions of poor slayed by Stalin and the USSR i imagine appreciated the compassion."

You still don't get that Stalin was a dictator.. He killed all of his fellow Bolshevik politicians. ALL OF THEM.

"See Chris, in theory, maybe a social democracy sounds fantastic. But it always requires the concentration of power to a relative few, and bad, corruptible people always gravitate to that concentration of power."

Hitler and Stalin were not leaders of social democratic regimes, Josh. You are not going to make me budge by arguing this way. You are only going to make it easier.

"Hayek wrote about this phenomenon in The Road To Serfdom. Because of that, a social democracy will never do what it sets out to do and in the long run will always do more harm than good."

LOL, Hitler and Stalin were not social democrats, Josh. The last 60 years of social democracy in Western nations has been successful.

"Yes. When I was in high school, in ME or NS, there were always a couple of drunks, a couple of pervs, a lot of just horrible teachers, and few good ones that cared."

A couple is not all, Josh. "A few good ones" is based on your personality. Some students like teacher X, some don't.

"And the problem is, all of the horrible teachers have tenure."

Yes, a few, but that is the way it should be.

"So no its not a horrible argument."

Yes it is. You asserted that all teachers are pervs and drunks. Not just a few. Therefore, it is/was a HORRIBLE argument.

"AS WELL, teachers aren't even allowed to fail students anymore."

And? Good education has nothing to with failing a students. If you think it does, then you've got some latent problems that need to be dealt with.

"We spend 13 years going through this system, and who comes out with any skill that provides any kind of value to our society? What is our governments spending so much money on to teach us that we need so badly? If it costs, say $10,000 per student per year for the government to educate me, well, they spent $130,000 educating me through my life-time to do what?"

Hmmm? You don't know English grammar, vocab, or how to write an essay? You didn't learn mathematics? You didn't learn about history and art and how to keep yourself fit? I think you did. I think you are just whinging that you aren't as good as the Koreans because of your culture's "freedom".

"Why would I want to invest my income into a system that wastes $130,000 over a wasted 13 year span of an individuals life? I wouldn't."

Again, what waste? I see a generation of highly educated people.

Chris said...

I tell you one thing you weren't taught to do properly in high school: debate. You seem very comfortable continuing to believe something even though you have been clearly beaten. That is a major hole in our school system that should be filled.

Chris said...

"Pffft give me a break. People think its ok to be stupid as long as they're free? Lol.
"

That's right. It doesn't matter if the individual knows a lot about "liberty" or nothing, the cult of freedom guides his or her actions.

"People who understand liberty and the responsibility it entails values education with high regard and worked their asses off to get where they are."

You know, you need to stop worshiping those who can study education to get ahead. I don't get it a second thought. ;)

"I agree that there is certainly an issue with how our kids are being raised and the general attitudes of parents and children in Western society. I think its because we don't think we need to work hard to enjoy prosperity, and because of that we are losing our prosperity. Like other abnormalities in our societies, I can take it back to the fact the US dollar provides us an illusion of wealth and easy living that will lose once it is no longer the reserve currency of the world. If the standard of living takes a dramatic shift downward, people here will start to view education very differently."

It is the value of freedom that is causing the problems. That is why children in class are so unruly. Their parents believe in freedom, they believe in freedom, and then the poor teacher has to try rule a mob of libertines who want to be free more than they want to learn.

That is your value, Josh.

"I was watching a speech given by a Hans Rosling, professor of global health at Sweden's Karolinska Institute, and he made a comment about when he was in graduate school (i think he was training to be a surgeon) he went to India for a year to study. He was always top in his class so he figured when he went to India it would be no different, but he struggled to compete with the students there. He said he would read through a text book once, but his fellow students in India would know the text book inside and out. The stark difference in attitude and work ethic was shocking. You can watch his 15 min speech here:"

Yes, because the Indians do not value freedom as their culture's central defining value. And, of course, they are poor. :)

Chris said...

"Actually, I'm pro-freedom, and am not a big fan of democracy."

That's a contradiction. You can not be for freedom, yet be against political freedom. You are instead not "for freedom", but for the totalitarian freedom of private property. That's a very, very narrow type of freedom.

"I am capitalist."

I am a Marxist.

However, given Wikipedia's definition of totalitarianism: "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political organization, faction, or class domination, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible."

...I'm not for the state being under control of one political organization, i'm not for class domination, I think the state should have very strict limitations to its power and should not regulate every aspect of private and public life...I'm probably not totalitarian."

Yes you are. You are a totalitarian in favor of the domination of private property. That means that you are a bourgeoisie that wants bourgeoisie domination of the political sphere. That, in my opinion, and in fact, is class domination. You are a totalitarian capitalist.

"However if you consider the republicrats in the US to be a one-party system...this definition can be easily applied to the US government."

There is no difference between you and the Republicrats in my opinion.

Chris said...

"Sharp pain suffering in an area very important to males. The cause is not know because he has to wait 5 weeks to see someone that can diagnose it."

I'm sure it hurts, but cancer doesn't spread that fast. And if he is in the late stages, well.. Finally it is most likely a bladder infection.. Anyway, if the system was better funded, this would not be a problem. It is a problem because OF YOU.

"As per normal, those that have no health concerns, love socialized medicine, those that have significant health concerns, never have anything good to say about it."

Gross over-simplification.

Furlong said...

"A couple is not all, Josh."

The point is that they're protected by their union and can't be removed, no matter how poor of a teacher they are.

"Hmmm? You don't know English grammar, vocab, or how to write an essay? You didn't learn mathematics? You didn't learn about history and art and how to keep yourself fit? I think you did. I think you are just whinging that you aren't as good as the Koreans because of your culture's "freedom"."

There's no reason an individual shouldn't come out of 13 years of schooling without an employable skill.

"It is the value of freedom that is causing the problems. That is why children in class are so unruly. Their parents believe in freedom, they believe in freedom, and then the poor teacher has to try rule a mob of libertines who want to be free more than they want to learn."

I value freedom from government. My children will feel the wrath of my heavy hand on their rear-end if they act out. It is the socialists mis-interpretation of equality that allows kids to go through school without challenge and without risk of failure.

"That's a contradiction. You can not be for freedom, yet be against political freedom."

What does "political freedom" mean?

"Yes you are. You are a totalitarian in favor of the domination of private property. That means that you are a bourgeoisie that wants bourgeoisie domination of the political sphere. That, in my opinion, and in fact, is class domination. You are a totalitarian capitalist."

Still not sure how I'm a totalitarian...

"I'm sure it hurts, but cancer doesn't spread that fast. And if he is in the late stages, well.. Finally it is most likely a bladder infection.. Anyway, if the system was better funded, this would not be a problem. It is a problem because OF YOU."

Thank you Dr. Chris. Unfortunately, in this socialized health care system, to see an ACTUAL specialist, my friend needs to wait 4 - 6 weeks. Properly funded? Health care costs rise faster than inflation because its government subsidized. Because health care costs rise faster than inflation, government always will have trouble properly funding the system. There is no amount of money they could poor into the health care system that would "properly" fund it. Name me one health care system in the world that isn't craving more funding?

"Gross over-simplification."

More of a disgusting reality.